State Rep. Meier: News from the statehouse

We returned after turnaround to start hearing the Senate'sbills. The event everyone has been waiting for finally arrived, when the Kansas Supreme Court published its ruling in the caseof Gannon vs. State, otherwise known as the school finance case.The ruling by the Supreme Court is sure to set the stage for the rest of thesession, and I will keep you updated as I learn more.

A Senate bill that aims to increase the transparency and accountability

Page 2 of 3 - of representatives in the Capitol made its way to the House this week.

SB413, also called the Transparency Act, would require audio and video

streaming in the four largest committee rooms here at the statehouse.

Cameras would be set up in rooms that hold the committees on budget,

education, judiciary, commerce, and federal and state affairs.

Proponents want to make it easier for constituents to see their representatives in action, and allow Kansans, especially those who can’t make it to Topeka, to get more involved in the democratic process.

A two-year trial run is proposed with an approximate annual cost of $188,000 a year. Opponents of the bill say that political theatre is an inherent

part of committee meetings and events that take place on the floor, so

having cameras will only enhance the showboating by legislators.

They also stated that with technology today, some people may take bits and

pieces of the footage, negatively twist it and then post it on social

media.

Kansas is one of only three states that permit audio-only

streaming from the House or Senate floor.

Bill proposes changes to death penalty appeals

Earlier this session, the Senate passed a bill that would make changes

to the death penalty appeals process. The Senate put the contents of

their bill into House Bill 2389 that had already passed last year, a

procedure called a “gut and go.”

That meant the House could only concur or non-concur with the bill. This is the same process that was used by the Senate to pass the Kansas-wide smoking ban in 2010 and the tax cuts of 2012.

But. this session, in an effort to understand HB 2389, the chairman of

the Corrections & Juvenile Justice Committee made a motion to non-concur and a conference committee was appointed.

Now the bill will be discussed by three Senators and three Representatives and possibly amended before a final vote by both chambers. The chairman held an informational hearing in our committee on the bill.

HB 2389 would shorten the time limits for submitting appeals, restrict

the number of pages of an appeals brief, limit the review for errors to

only the sentencing phase, and would be retroactive.

The proponent held up appeals briefs that were more than 400 pages and stated that they believed defense attorneys produced such long briefs on purpose in order to delay the process.

He testified that the bill would only put the current Kansas Supreme Courts rules into statute and shorten the process to 8-10 years.

The Board of Indigent Defense testified in the Transportation & Public

Page 3 of 3 - Safety Budget Committee that they would need hundreds of thousands more

dollars for their budget if the bill passes.

Currently, the state has four BIDS defense attorneys that handle death penalty cases.

They do all their research, investigations, and writing themselves with

no additional staff. The BIDS director testified that we would need to

hire more attorneys and staff to meet the deadlines proposed in the

bill.

Opponents to the bill testified that this bill would take away judicial

discretion in deciding how much time is needed and how long a brief is

required. They testified that some briefs are covering cases with tens

of thousands of pages of evidence.

One opponent was a man that was exonerated after serving 24 years; others were relatives of murder victims. Another opponent who represented Public Defense Attorneys testified that the bill would actually make the appeals process take longer because it would be their duty to fight the unrealistic time and page limits.

They stated that currently the Supreme Court allows extensions only because the public defenders have convinced the court that they are needed to meet constitutional requirements and this statute would conflict with U.S. Constitutional rights.

It was a very informative and interesting hearing on the appeals process

and the committee will discuss the issue this coming week.

Keep in touch

It is a special honor to serve as your representative. I value and need

your input on the various issues facing state government in order to

better serve my district and this state. Please feel free to contact me